Do you realize how mortally sinful it is to wrongly impute false motives to someone else especially when the contrary is publicly manifested and there is no evidence to the contrary? And for the last time, the ravings of your imagination and superficial "intuitions" do not constitute evidence.
Was St. Catherine of Siena "mortally sinful" when she said that the cardinals who elected the Avignon Popes were "flowers that shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek," or was she telling the truth?
Was Christ "mortally sinful" when He called the Pharisees "children of the devil"?
It seems to me that SSPX is keeping the VII sect alive and hopping, and that they go out of their way to justify the enemy, even going so far as to say the New Rite of Consecration is valid and to allow priests to enter their society DIRECT from Novus Ordo without being re-ordained. Abp. Lefebvre when he was alive kicked sedevacantists out of the seminary without any pay, against the rules of the Church, enforced the 1962 Missal, and enforced the
una cuм with an iron rod.
How is the contrary of my "intuition" publicly manifested, Caminus? Please explain, I'm listening. My intuition is based on the facts I just presented, the concrete ACTIONS of the SSPX, just as the Cardinals of the Great Western Schism showed their bad faith through the action of electing two Popes because they didn't like the first one.
You want to turn me into the intolerant and uncharitable one because of my mere words, when Abp. Lefebvre's ACTIONS showed he was the one who truly lacked charity, and it is his actions that have led to my harsh words. If Abp. Lefebvre just wanted to maintain tradition why did he not allow SSPX to be an umbrella covering both sedevacantists and those who said the
una cuм until we had further information about which side was right? For someone who was honestly confused and troubled that would be the obvious solution.
Like Malachi Martin, Abp. Lefebvre seems to be a sacred monster for some traditionalists. They can create all kinds of havoc and then be forgiven anything because they were "confused." What many don't understand is that this does not excuse him even if it's true. A leader's job is to lead -- if he is confused, he is a bad leader, and God has not called him. It's pretty simple. But Abp. Lefebvre not only positioned himself as a leader, but tried to squelch and squash the voices of those who would have made better leaders, because they possessed more truth.
Again, this was an action, that had results, that had consequences, that had FRUITS that REEKED, upon which I base my provisional judgment.